Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1887-02-09
TILT OVER THE SMACKS.
ANOTHERB BATCH OF FISHERIES
CORRESPONDENCE.

CORRESPp pNDENCE.
The President Sends to the House the
Communications Between the Two
Governments InterchangAd Since Dec.
S-Nintster Phelps too Smart to Per
NIT Lord IddesieiGh to ShirL Facing
the MUsic.
WASHINGTON, Feb. S.-The President
to day sent to the House, In answer to the
resolution introduced by Mr.. Belmont.
copies of the correspondence which has
taken place since Dec. S last and up to the
present time between the Department of
State and the government of Great
Britain. 1t is volumiuous, and upon the
same line as that published in December
In q letter to Minister Phelps from the
Earl of lddesleigh, dated Nov. 30 last, on
the question of the North American fish
cries. 1t is stated that her maiesty's gov
ernment earnestly desires some equitable
settlement of the controversy,
and that it is with feelings of disappoint-
ment that there is not found in the previ-
GUS note from Minister Phelps anv indi-
cation of a wish on the part of the United
States government to enter upon negotia-
tions "based on the principle of mutual
concessions, but rather suggestion that
the same ad interim construc-
ton of the terms OF the eX-
listing treaty should be reached which
might for the present remove the
chance of disputes" The cOmmunIca.
ton submits the desire of the British gov
ernment to leave the points Of technical
detail and construction in the treaties
and fishery laws for the consideration OF
commission properly constituted to eX-
anime them.
CANADIAN APOLOGY.
On Dec. 16 Lord Iddesleigh, in a COM
municatiOn to Minister Phelps, transmits
the apology of the Canadian government
for having hauled down the flag of the
Marion Grimes.
Abiding to the seizure of the Everitt
Steel Lord Iddesleigh says:
Her maJesty's government greatly regret
that the Incidents alluded to should occur
and they can only renew the assurances con-
veyed to you IN my note of Jan. 30. that
whilst firmly resolved to uphold the undoubt-
ed treaty rights of her maiesty's North
American subjects in regard to the fisheries,
they Will also equally MAINTAIN the undoubted
rights of United States fishermen to obtain
shelter in Canadian ports under such restric-
tlons as may be necessary to prevent their
abusing privileges reserved to them by the
treaty.
MR.. FIsH's STAND.
The most interesting and most impOr-
tant document in the series is letter
from Minister Phelps to Lord Salisbury,
dated Jan. 16, some extracts from which
are here given;
1t seems now very important that before
| the commencement OF another fishing season
| distinct understanding should be reached
! between the United States government amt
! that OF her majesty, relative to the course to
! be pursued by the Canadian authorities to-
! ward American vessels. 1t is not without
! surprise that 1 have read Lord IddesleIgh's
| remark in the note above mentioned referring q
| to the treaty OF 1878, that her majesty's gov
| ernment have not as yet been informed in
| what respect the construction placed npon
| that instrument by the government of the
| United States differs from their own,
| Had his lordship perused more attentivelv
! my note to his predecessor in office, Lord
| Rosebery, under date of June 2, 1856, to
| which reference was made IN nv note to
! Lord IddesleiSh OF September, 1886, | think
| he could not have failed to apprehend dis
| tinctly the construction of thaJ treaty for
| which the government of the United States
| contended, and the reasons and arguments
| upon which IL is founded. | have again to
| respectfully refer your lordship to my note to
| Lord ROsebery of June 2, 1885, for a very
! full and, IhOpe. clear exposition of the ground
! taken by the United States government on
! that point. IL Is unnecessary to repeat il.
| and am unable to add to it. In reply to the
| observation in my note TO LORD Iddesleigh OF
! Sept. II, 1856, on the point whether such
| discussion should be sustained in these cases
Y
| respect to them should be made known. Il
proposition to which, as stated in my note,
the United states government is unable to
! accede, His ordehlp cites in support of it
! some language of Mr.. Fish, when Secretary
| of state OF the United States, addressed to the
! United States Consul General at Montreal in
May, 1870. From the view of Mr. Fish the
| United states government has no disposition
| nor occasion TO dissent, but 1t cannot regard
| it as in any way applicable to the present
! cases. 1t ls true beyond question that when
| private vessel Is seZeu for an alleged in
fraction OF the laws of the country in which
the seizure takes place, and the fact of in
! fraction ana the exact legal con-
| struction OF the local statutes
| claimed to be transgressed not
| disputed, aud is in process of determination by
a proper tribunal the government to which
| the vessel belongs VIII not interfere in ad-
! vance OF such determination and before ac-
| quirIng the information on which 1t depends,
! aud especially when it Is not yet Informed
! whether the act Of the officers making the
! SEIZURE viii not be repudiated by the govern =
! ment under which he acts, SO that interfer-
| ence Will not be necessary. This is all in fact
! that was stated by Mr.. Fish on that occasion, E"
NOT PARALLEL CASES.
Mr.. Phelps quotes from Mr.. Fish's note
at some length and then proceeds as iOl-
| lows:
But in the present case the facts constitut
! ing the alleged infraCtion by the vessel seized
! are not in dispute except some circumstances
]
! validity Of the seizure. The original ground
/ OF seizure was the purchase by the mas
/ ter Of vessel of q small quantity uf
J bait from the inhabitants OF Nova Scotia TO
! he used in fishing. This purchase is not
! denied by the owners. of the vessel.
| And the United states government insist
| |. That such an act IS not in violation Of the
treaty OF 1878; and
.. That no then existing statute in Great
| Britain or Canada authorized any proceed
! inqs against vessel for such an act even If it
! could be regarded as in violation Of the terms
| Of the treaty and no such statute mas been Us
| yet produced.
In response to the charge brought against
| the "Adbms," and upon which many other
! vessels have been seized, that Of technical
violation Of the customs act In ON itting TO re-
| port at the custom house, though having no
| business at the port, (and in some instance
| where the vessel seized was not
within several miles OF the port.
| the United States government claim
| Whilst not admitting that the omission
| to report was even technical transgression OF
L the act; that even II IL were no harm having
! been done or intended, proceedings against a
| vessel for an inAdyerteuce Of that sort were
| IN high degree harsh, unreasonable and un-
| friendly. Especially as for many years no
such effect mad been given TO the act in re-
! spect 10 hshing -scls and no previous no.
| tice OF the change in It's construction has been
! promulgated. IL seems apparent, therefore,
! that the cases ia question. rs they are to be